The Importance of Clear Contractual Provisions in Determining Seafarer Compensation

Delia B. Borreta as Widow of Deceased Manuel A. Borreta, Jr. v. Evic Human Resource Management, Inc., Athenian Ship Management Inc., and/or Ma. Victoria C. Nicolas, G.R. No. 224026, February 03, 2020

Imagine the heartbreak of losing a loved one at sea, only to face a battle over rightful compensation. This is the reality many families of Filipino seafarers face, as illustrated in the case of Delia Borreta, whose husband Manuel died aboard a ship under mysterious circumstances. The central question in this legal saga was whether Manuel’s death by suicide should bar his widow from receiving death benefits, transportation, and burial expenses as per their employment contract. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case sheds light on the critical role of contractual provisions in determining the scope of benefits for seafarers and their families.

Manuel Borreta, a cook on the M/V Sea Lord, was found dead in the ship’s lavatory, with evidence suggesting suicide. His widow, Delia, sought various benefits under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), including death benefits, insurance proceeds, and other monetary claims. The respondents, however, argued that suicide was not compensable under the standard employment contract or the CBA. The case journeyed through the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators to the Court of Appeals, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court, which provided a definitive ruling on the matter.

Legal Context: Understanding Seafarer Rights and Benefits

In the Philippines, the rights and benefits of seafarers are primarily governed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration’s Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). These legal instruments outline the terms of employment, including compensation for death or injury.

Key to this case is the interpretation of Section 25.1 of the CBA, which states that the employer is liable for death benefits “through any cause whilst in the employment of the Company.” This provision is crucial because it expands the scope of compensable deaths beyond those directly related to work, a common limitation found in the POEA-SEC.

The term “suicide” in the context of employment benefits often raises questions about whether it is considered a natural or accidental cause of death. Under Republic Act No. 10022, which mandates compulsory insurance coverage for migrant workers, benefits are typically limited to accidental deaths. However, the CBA’s broader language in this case provided a different framework for analysis.

Another relevant legal principle is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which requires parties to seek relief through administrative channels before resorting to judicial action. This doctrine was significant in determining the procedural steps taken by the respondents in appealing the decision of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.

Case Breakdown: From Tragedy to Legal Battle

Manuel Borreta joined the M/V Sea Lord as a cook on June 25, 2013. On October 8, 2013, he was found dead in the ship’s lavatory, with a nylon cord around his neck. The ship’s crew reported that Manuel had been acting strangely in the days leading up to his death, locking himself in various rooms and expressing fear for his life.

Following Manuel’s death, an investigation was conducted, and a post-mortem report concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. Despite this, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) autopsy report in the Philippines noted the cause of death as “consistent with asphyxia by ligature,” without explicitly mentioning suicide.

Delia Borreta filed a claim for various benefits, which was initially granted by the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. The panel awarded her death benefits, insurance proceeds, and other monetary claims, rejecting the respondents’ argument that suicide was not compensable. However, the Court of Appeals modified this decision, affirming only the death benefits and transportation and burial expenses, and deleting other awards due to insufficient evidence of payment.

The Supreme Court’s decision focused on the interpretation of the CBA and the evidence of suicide. The Court found that:

“The cause of death of the seafarer is immaterial to the determination of petitioner’s entitlement to the said benefits. It is clear from the express provision of Section 25.1 of the CBA that respondents hold themselves liable for death benefits for the death of the seafarer under their employ for any cause.”

The Court also addressed procedural issues, clarifying that the respondents had properly filed their appeal within the 15-day period allowed by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, following the denial of their motion for reconsideration by the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.

Practical Implications: Guidance for Seafarers and Employers

This ruling underscores the importance of carefully drafting and understanding the terms of employment contracts and CBAs. For seafarers and their families, it highlights the potential for broader coverage under a CBA than what might be provided by standard employment contracts.

Employers in the maritime industry should ensure that their contracts and CBAs are clear and comprehensive, particularly regarding the scope of death benefits. This case also serves as a reminder of the need to properly document and present evidence in legal disputes, as the respondents’ failure to do so resulted in the reinstatement of certain monetary awards.

Key Lessons:

• Contracts and CBAs should clearly define the scope of compensable events, including death benefits.
• Evidence of payment or non-payment of benefits must be thoroughly documented and presented in legal proceedings.
• Seafarers and their families should be aware of their rights under both the POEA-SEC and any applicable CBA.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the key differences between the POEA-SEC and a CBA for seafarers?

The POEA-SEC provides a standard set of employment terms for Filipino seafarers, while a CBA can offer additional or more favorable terms negotiated between the seafarers’ union and the employer.

Can a seafarer’s family claim benefits if the seafarer dies by suicide?

It depends on the terms of the employment contract or CBA. In this case, the CBA’s provision for death benefits “through any cause” allowed the family to claim benefits despite the seafarer’s death by suicide.

What should seafarers do to ensure they are covered by a CBA?

Seafarers should check if their employer has a CBA in place and ensure they are included as beneficiaries. They should also keep copies of the CBA and understand its provisions.

How long do employers have to appeal decisions made by the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators?

Employers have 15 days from the denial of their motion for reconsideration to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals, as per Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

What are the implications of this ruling for future cases involving seafarer deaths?

This ruling may encourage more detailed and broader provisions in CBAs regarding death benefits, potentially leading to more comprehensive coverage for seafarers and their families.

ASG Law specializes in maritime and labor law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.